alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed July 14, 2021

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D20

- 1672 Lower Tribunal No. 18

- 24655

________________ 

### Cordis Corporation , Appellant,

vs. 

### Nicole Williams, etc., Appellee.

An Appeal from a non - final order from the Circuit Court for Miami

Dade County, David C. Miller , Judge. Crowell & Moring LLP, and Vincent J. Galluzzo (Washington, D.C.); and Wallen Kelley, and John D. Golden , for appellant. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., and Joseph R. Johnson (West Palm Beach), for appellee.

Before HENDON, MILLER, and BOKOR , JJ. PER CURIAM.2 Cordis Corporation (“Cordis”) appeals from a non

- final order denying its motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non

- conveniens . We affirm. The plaintiff, Nicole Williams, individually, and as personal representative of the Estate of Charles Windell Williams, Jr., and as Guardian for Kaleb J. Williams and Kailyn G. Williams, brought a product liability suit against Cordis, alleging that defects in the Cordis TrapEase Permanent Inferior V ena Cava Filter (“Cordis IVC Filter”) caused the deceased’s injuries and death. The plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the state of Maryland. Cordis is a Florida corporation and maintains an office in Miami Lakes, Florida. Cordis’s Miami Lakes office i s the central location for handling product complaints, quality control, risk management, training, and regulatory compliance involving the Cordis IVC Filter. Following a hearing, the trial court denied Cordis’s motion to dismiss on the ground of foru m non conveniens . Based on our review of the record, including the trial court’s order addressing each of the forum non
conveniens factors, 1 we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. As such, we affirm the order under review.

1 The analysis for forum non conveniens is well established in Florida law. See Cortez v. Palace Resorts , 123 So. 3d 1085 (Fla. 2013); Kinney Sys., Inc. v. Cont’l Ins. Co. , 674 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1996); Abeid

- Saba v. Carnival Corp. , 184 So. 3d 593, 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Telemundo Network Grp., LLC v. Azteca Int'l Corp. , 957 So. 2d 705, 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.061(a).3 Aerolineas Argentinas, S.A. v. Gimenez , 807 So. 2d 111, 113 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (stating that decision to grant or deny a forum non conveniens motion for dismissal rests in the sound discretion of the trial court). Affirmed.
Order filed June 26, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00440-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF N.N.F., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 315th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2013-06707J

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a suit in which the 

termination of the parent-child relationship is at issue. Appellant's brief was due 

June 22, 2015. No brief has been filed. 

Appeals in parental termination cases and child protection cases are to be 

brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. 

See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (effective May 1, 2012). This accelerated schedule 

requires greater compliance with briefing deadlines. 

Therefore we order appellant’s appointed counsel Lana Shadwick, to file 

appellant’s brief no later than July 9, 2015. If the brief is not filed by that date, 

counsel may be required to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of 
court. In addition, the court may require appointment of new counsel due to the 

failure to timely file appellant’s brief. 

PER CURIAM
# C_2019423EN.01005401.xml

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/54

---

Order of the General Court of 9 October 2019 — Essity Hygiene and Health v EUIPO (Representation of a leaf)

(Case T-607/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a leaf - Absolute ground for refusal - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2019/C 423/68)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Essity Hygiene and Health AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: U. Wennermark, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2018 (Case R 2196/2017-5) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a leaf as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.

---
### ^COURTOFAPPEALS mirtofAppealsDistrict

OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 :opy

2/18/2015 COA Case No. 12-13-00136-CR PRIDGEN, ROBERTLYNN Tr. Ct. No. 29956 PD-0186-15 

### On this day, this Court has granted the Appellant's motion for an extension of time in which to file the Petition for Discretionary Review. The time to file the petition 

### has been extended to Monday, April 06, 2015. NOFURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE ENTERTAINED. NOTE: Petition for Discretionary Review must be filed with the CourtofCriminal Appeals. Abel Acosta, Clerk

12TH COURT OF APPEALS CLERK CATHY LUSK 1517 W. FRONT, ROOM 354 TYLER, TX 75701

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
EXHIBIT 10.37b


 


AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE


 


AMENDMENT, dated December
9, 2016, to Amended and Restated 5.83% Fixed Convertible Promissory Note, dated as of August 25, 2016, made by and between Progreen
Properties, Inc., a Delaware corporation, (the “Borrower”), and American Residential Fastigheter AB, a corporation
formed under the laws of Sweden (the “Lender”). Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall
have the meaning assigned to such term in the Original Note.


 


WHEREAS, the Borrower and
the Lender are parties to that certain Amended and Restated 5.83% Fixed Convertible Promissory Note, dated as of August 25, 2016
(the “Original Note”) pursuant to which the Borrower has borrowed the amount of $22,000 from the Lender;


 


WHEREAS, the Borrower and
the Lender have agreed to extend the date up to which the the Borrower has the right to prepay the Original Note and specify the
amount of the required prepayment at such extended repayment date; and


 


WHEREAS, in accordance
with the terms and conditions of the Original Note, the Borrower and the Lender hereby approve the amendment of the Original Note
as set forth herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the foregoing and the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows:


 


		1.	By their respective execution of this Agreement, the Borrower and the Lender agree that the sixth
and seventh first written paragraphs the forepart of the Original Note that govern prepayment of the Original Note are hereby amended
to read in their entirety as follows:



 


“This Note may be prepaid
by the Company, in whole or in part, according to the following schedule:


 


	Days Since Effective Date of Original Note	Prepayment Amount
	Under 90	115% of Principal Amount
	91-135	125% of Principal Amount
	136-180	135% of the Principal Amount
	181-204	$31,200 (135% of Principal Amount plus $1,500, including interest)


 






    	 		 



     

    




 


After January 16, 2017, this Note
may not be prepaid without written consent from Holder, which consent may be withheld, delayed or denied in Holder’s sole
and absolute discretion. Whenever any amount expressed to be due by the terms of this Note is due on any day which is not a Business
Day (as defined below), the same shall instead be due on the next succeeding day which is a Business Day. If the Note is in default,
per Section 2.00 below, the Company may not prepay the Note without written consent of the Holder.”


 





	 	2.	Except
as expressly provided herein, the Original Note shall continue in full force and effect.






 





	 	PROGREEN PROPERTIES, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Jan Telander
	 	Name: 	Jan Telander
	 	Title: 	President
	 	 	 
	 	TANGIERS GLOBAL, LLC
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Michael Sobeck
	 	Name: 	Michael Sobeck
	 	Title: 	Managing Member
EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in this Annual  Report (From 10K)
and the following  Registration  Statements of Cornerstone  Realty Income Trust,
Inc.  and in the related  Prospectuses  of our report  dated  January 27,  2000,
except for Note 10 , as to which the date is February 21, 2000,  included in the
1999 Annual Report to Shareholders of Cornerstone Realty Income Trust, Inc.:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Registration Statement Number                 Description
<S>                                          <C>
333-24871                          Form S-8,  pertaining  to the  Company's  1992  Non-Employee
                                   Directors Stock Option Plan, Special Non-Employee  Directors
                                   Stock Option Plan and Non-Employee Directors Fees Plan

333-24875                          Form S-8, pertaining to the Company's 1992 Incentive Plan

333-34441                          Form S-3, Shelf  Registration  Statement,  pertaining to the
                                   registration  of $200  million of Common  Shares,  Preferred
                                   Shares and Debt Securities

333-19187                          Form S-3, pertaining to the Company's Dividend  Reinvestment
                                   and Share Purchase Plan

333-94895                          Form S-3,  pertaining to the resale of up to 185,887  Common
                                   Shares of the Company
</TABLE>

Our audits also included the financial  statement schedule of Cornerstone Realty
Income Trust, Inc. listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the  responsibility of
the Company's  management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on
our audits. In our opinion,  the financial statement schedule referred to above,
when considered in relation to the basic financial  statements taken as a whole,
present fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

                                                     /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Richmond, Virginia
March 27, 2000
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Unify Corporation (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Todd E. Wille, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:




(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and




(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.




Dated: March 15, 2011
/s/ TODD E. WILLETodd E. WilleChief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Unify Corporation and will be retained by Unify Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




---
#### Izumi v. Baggayan

20114

8/11/98

Vacated & Remanded
**Exhibit 31.01**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Patrick W. Cavanagh, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Williams Controls Inc.;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure control and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: 

     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
#### State v. Yamamoto

23517

05/28/2002

Dismissed
# C_2020271EN.01001802.xml

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Ústavný súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovak Republic) — proceedings brought by Prezident Slovenskej republiky

(Case C-378/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal market in electricity - Directive 2009/72/EC - Article 35(4) and (5) - Independence of regulatory authorities - National legislation transferring the power to appoint the president of the national regulatory authority from the Head of State to the government - national ministries participating in price-setting procedures)

(2020/C 271/25)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Ústavný súd Slovenskej republiky

Party to the main proceedings

Prezident Slovenskej republiky

In the presence of: Národná rada Slovenskej republiky, Vláda Slovenskej republiky

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 35(4) and (5) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009, concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that the government of that State is competent to appoint and dismiss the president of the national regulatory authority, to the extent that all the requirements laid down by those provisions are complied with, which is for the referring court to review. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 35(4) and (5) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009, concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that the government of that State is competent to appoint and dismiss the president of the national regulatory authority, to the extent that all the requirements laid down by those provisions are complied with, which is for the referring court to review.

| 2. | Article 35(4) and (5) of Directive 2009/72 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation of a Member State which, to ensure the public interest is protected, prescribes that representatives of ministries of that State participate in certain procedures before the national regulatory body concerning price setting, to the extent that that authority’s independence in decision-making is respected, which is for the referring court to review. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 35(4) and (5) of Directive 2009/72 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation of a Member State which, to ensure the public interest is protected, prescribes that representatives of ministries of that State participate in certain procedures before the national regulatory body concerning price setting, to the extent that that authority’s independence in decision-making is respected, which is for the referring court to review.

---

(1)  JO C 238 du 15.7.2019.

---
# C_2019131EN.01005001.xml

| 8.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/50

---

Order of the General Court of 14 February 2019 — Brunke v Commission

(Case T-258/18) (1)

(Action for failure to act - Deadline for bringing an action - Starting point - No invitation to act - Second invitation to act - Manifest inadmissibility - Application of a declaratory nature - Application for interim measures - Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

(2019/C 131/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Lothar Brunke (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Schniebel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

Re:

Principally, an application for a declaration establishing ‘the discriminatory effect’ of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22) and, in the alternative, first, an application, in essence, for an interim measure to be directed against the Commission and, secondly, an application under Article 265 TFEU for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to follow up on the applicant’s letters of 6 June and 27 December 2017.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed in part due to the Court’s manifest lack of jurisdiction to hear the action and in part because it is manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed in part due to the Court’s manifest lack of jurisdiction to hear the action and in part because it is manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament.

| 3. | Mr Lothar Brunke shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Lothar Brunke shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | The Council shall bear its own costs relating to its application to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Council shall bear its own costs relating to its application to intervene.

| 5. | The Parliament shall bear its own costs relating to its application to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Parliament shall bear its own costs relating to its application to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ CC 276, 6.8.2018.

---
22144

#### State v. Marines

Affirmed
# C_2018455EN.01003001.xml

| 17.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 455/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 455/30

---

Action brought on 8 October 2018 — Diesel v EUIPO — Sprinter megacentrosdel deporte (D)

(Case T-615/18)

(2018/C 455/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Diesel SpA (Breganze, Italy) (represented by: A. Parassina, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sprinter megacentros del deporte, SL (Elche, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark D — Application for registration No 11 404 019

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 August 2018 in Case R 2657/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceeding. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceeding.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Rule 22(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Rule 22(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95;

| — | Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---